Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Robert J. Maxwell Frank Lovejoy is a veteran who never was sent overseas during the war. He can't find a job to support his wife (Kathleen Ryan) and little boy. Angry, embittered, and perhaps a little guilty, he falls in with bad guy Lloyd Bridges who sport platinum cuff links and seems to be enjoying himself all over the little California town. Bridges offers Lovejoy a job as his wheel man. Just a couple of minor stick-ups, nothing serious. But the robberies escalate into the kidnapping of a college boy from a rich family. Bridges, an envious psychopath, kills the kid out of spite. Both Bridges and Lovejoy are caught and jailed but several thousand people break into the jail, beat the men, and pass them outside overhead like serving platters where they meet vigilante justice.I haven't seen it since I was a kid but the memory of that climactic collective murder still makes me wince.It's impossible to comment on the performances, or on much else for that matter, after the passage of so many years but unless my brain has turned to tofu, I'm compelled to recommend the film. I remember Lovejoy as being a little stiff but Lloyd Bridges giving a dead imitation of a caged animal. Kathleen Ryan was winsome. And there is a touching portrait of a desperately lonely lady who hooks up with Lovejoy.It was made at the height of the anti-Red hysteria in Hollywood, a time when subliminal pro-communist messages were being read into cinematic trifles. And the advertising campaign that accompanied this release seemed almost to goad the audience into mindless mob action. Get in on the ground floor of the explosive rage for justice! That sort of thing. In other words, hang the Reds.It was completely at odds with the message of the movie itself, which was that ordinary guys can get sucked up by circumstances and find themselves suffering the same fate as those who are truly evil. Oh -- and mobs can be dangerous. (If you're a social psychologist, think "risky shift".) Out of all the simple black-and-white crime melodramas that appeared in the post-war period, this is one of the few that had me by the lapels.Based on a real incident in 1930s San Jose, California.If it shows up, be sure to catch it.

bob the moo When Howard Tyler moved his family out west to California, he did not plan for unemployment to push them as close to breaking point as it has. Down on his luck, Howard is hanging out in a bowling lane when he meets the charismatic and generous Jerry Slocum. Slocum offers him a job that will pay really well and Howard gratefully accepts. When he learns that he is the driver in the robbery of a grocery store, he has misgivings but none that cannot be drowned out by the relief of having plenty of money in his pocket for the first time in years. However one thing leads to another and it is not long before Howard finds himself exceeding what he is willing to accept being part of but yet unable to get out.A late night "noir" double bill on channel 4 caused me to stumble across this film despite never having heard of it before. Although not strictly a noir, the film is an effective drama that does rely on the "normal" guy drawn into a destructive world of crime. The plot offers lots of potential in the dark content and is still good even if it doesn't really deliver on it. The narrative focuses on Howard's descent and I was surprised by morally quite how simplistic it all was. Howard's inability to deal with what he does is straightforward and the clear fate served him by the script is also quite easy. The media plays a part in the shape of journalist Gil Stanton and I hoped this would produce something of real insight but mostly he and other characters seem to exist to vocalise the moralising part of the script. They do make more of it towards the end but I wanted more in the way of consistency.The moralising and simplicity across the film does rather make for a weaker second half but the "descent" is by far the best part of the film. In terms of delivery it offers more dramatic scenes but this also means more meat for the actors to work with. Lovejoy's desperation but yet conflict is written across his performance and at its best is pretty good. Unfortunately for him, he is totally in the shadow of a really enjoyable turn from Lloyd Bridges. Bridges is cool, arrogant, angry, slick, vain, violent and unpredictable and he is easily the most memorable part of the film. Inexplicable then that the script lets him disappear for the vast majority of the second half of the film – his absence is felt. Carlson tries to be the heart of the later debate but he cannot do it and comes over quite insincere and simplistic. Ryan, Locke, Jergens and others are so-so.Overall then this is an interesting moral drama that has plenty of good moments in the first half and plenty of potential in the second half's moralising. Bridges and Lovejoy deliver well in the first half. While it is a real shame that the second half feels weak, simplistic and no where near as intelligent and challenging as I wanted it to be, it is still pretty dark and interesting for the period and should be recognised for that.

ccthemovieman-1 The subject headline - Try And Get Me! - is the title of the movie, as I know it.Man, this is a different kind of film noir story, mainly because of the ending. It centers around two crooks, played by Lloyd Bridges and Frank Lovejoy. Of the two, Bridges is the more fun guy to watch. He and his girlfriend (played by Adele Jergens) have some very good dialog. Lovejoy and his potential girlfriend have some lines that are so bad they are laughable! It almost reminded me of poor Elisha Cook verbally duking it out with tough-gal Marie Windsor: in other film noirs corny but fun stuff.This was an entertaining film almost from the start. The last 30 minutes are really intense after Lovejoy cracks, stupidly admits his crime and is unfairly accosted as the murderer (he was the accomplice, not the murderer.) Then, the townsfolk, fueled by sensationalist journalism by the local paper, form into a huge lynch mob and storm the jail after the two criminals. The scenes of that, and what happens, are horrific. I am not exaggerating. In fact, it was one of the most disturbing scenes I've ever seen on film, especially for a classic movie. The cheers from the crowd when they kill the two men (which is not shown) are downright chilling.The film obviously is a powerful indictment on yellow journalism and of mob mentality. The last scene was so distasteful that I have never wanted to watch this movie again!

harrisonransom An awesomely powerful look at the divide between social classes in the US circa 1950 culminating in the transformation of law-abiding citizens into a violent, blood-thirsty mob bent on taking the law into their own hands. The mass psychology of mob violence couldn't be better portrayed. I have no idea how this truly moving film could have fallen into obscurity. It's message that violence never resolves conflict is as painfully current today as it was in 1950. Will we never learn from the past? One of the darkest Noir films I've seen. Generates a successive waterfall of emotions spanning the spectrum of human experiences, needs and drives. Well acted and well worth watching. Very highly recommended.